LOOKING TO THE FUTURE We must see that automation does not become a curse to society, but a wonderful application of the discoveries of science for the benefit of man. . ‘Perha ps impossible aim The generation that is being educated now will live in an a9° when money will cease to be an adequate measure of the value of goods—if indeed it ever was; when greater production and productivity will cease to be a major goal; when hours of work will be less than half those of the present time and the success of society will depend upon its ability to enjoy leisure; when space travel will be a possibility ... These are the ideas of U.S. economist Robert Theobald as expressed in his book, The Rich and the Poor. They hint at the marvelous world automation can bring. They are one answer to the question—what happens if automation takes place as rapidly as predicted in the next 15 years? But there are other answers, but few of them as hopeful as Theobald’s. AST YEAR USS. industrialist John I. Snyder tossed a bomb into the optimism of many American businessmen toward automation. It’s already here, he. declared; it is coming faster; no one is prepared for it; and no one is doing any- thing about it. Snyder exploded four disas- trous myths about automation. The most ‘seductive’ of these, he suggested, is the claim that automation is not going ‘to eli- minate many jobs. Reiterating an earlier esti- mate of a 40,000 weekly job loss in the U.S. due to auto- mation, he said: ““We must also keep in mind that automation is not only displacing people directly, but also indirectly through what are called ‘silent firings,’ in reference to work- ers who would have been hired for jobs eliminated by automa- tion.” A second myth is that auto- mation “will create jobs for workers not only in running the machines, but in maintaining and building them. The hard truth here is that modern auto- mated equipment requires very little maintenance.” Myth three is “the belief that those who lose their jobs to automation can be retrained and put into other jobs requir- ing higher skills and paying more money.” But studies have shown that automation is more likely to re- duce rather than increase the demands for skills and apti- tudes. Finally, the myth that ‘“work- ers replaced by automation in “one part of the country can find jobs in other areas. “The truth is that the work- ers thrown out of jobs are usually just those who are least able to move. They are the lower paid, the older, and the unskilled. Either they cannot af- ford to move from an economic standpoint or they are psycho- logically incapable of beginning a new life in a strange area.” Before Snyder, the optimists said expansion was inevitable in capitalism. Technology would always create more jobs than it displaced .After Snyder, they weren't so sure. There were some doubters, even: before. They had already begun to hint uneasily at a few of the problems. For example, in an article in Monetary Times (Toronto) in June, 1962: “As far as the labor problems A blessing if controlled. HAT WOULD you do with W a three-month vacation? —asks a headline over a recent article on automation in the Toronto Star. Most of us could immediate- ly rattle off a list of things we. would like to-do if we had the time (and money)—study; tra- vel: start. a hobby like wood- working; build a cottage by the lake; loaf in the sun. Unfortunately, things don’t come that easily. More often, automation looms as a threat rather than as progress which bestows on us the blessing of leisure. Trade unions in the U.S. and Canada have been forced to search for answer to automa- tion now, because for most workers, the alternative to labor is not leisure, but unem- ployment. The problems of automation which loom up at the bargaining table are not always easy to spell out. But the research de- partment of the AFL-CIO in the U.S. has outlined three general trade union goals: (1) Prevent job losses if pos- sible; (2) Obtain a fair share of gains resulting from increased productivity; (3) Cushion the impact of any change or any job displace- ment, including the impact of job shifts within a plant as well as outright layoffs. In Canada, the United Elec- trical Workers Union (UE) has asked for legislative action to “stave off evil effects of automa- tion. It proposes legislation to control the timing of automa- tion applications by license; to eliminate tax and other incen- tives to business from the pub- lic purse which speed up the ap- plication of automation; and to enforce prior consultation by corporations planning automa- tion with representatives of the workers involved. The New Democratic Party also suggests that the “threat” of automation cannot be solved merely at the bargaining table, but needs government action. ‘The Communist Party, in its economic program adopted at its 18th convention, urges pub- lic control over the introduction of automation. “The people must not permit the monopolies to make this wonderful application of science into a curse,” it says. “We must ensure that its great po- tentialities are utilized to en- rich society as a whole.” The party calls for legislation to bring automation under the control of public commissions constituted of members appoint- ed by the trade unions, the gov- '-ernments and the employers in equal numbers. “Direct public responsibility must be established for the fu- ture of all the workers displaced by automation.” Legislation would progressive- ly decree a shorter work day or week, vacations with pay, lower pension age, as automation re- duced the man hours required to produce the necessary wealth. Such democratic public con- trol over the introduction of au- tomation would be “an import- ant step to socialism,” says th Communist Party. of are involved, the advanet automation is likely t two entirely different When applied to the line, it can represent ; ment whereby more 80° “a 0 come available at lowe! oF At a greater number of peop 5 ‘2 the same time, it might als fot move the means’ of paying them by putting more an! people out of work.” : Another fear haunted one In a period of increasing let iden are we “going to enter @ oO age of personal and SOC? of vance or descend into 4 mass boredom?” wondere Congress. if Can a society based 0? F vate ownership of factories at automated machines, whit dap! operated for private ga! aet to automation? There ar i ous doubts. At least oné tern social scientist seems * pared to admit it cannot. ib Sir Geoffrey Vickers of 4 tain says the further grow ur automation is likely to have in usually violent repercussion ent society, and the unemploy rune it causes will be more dis tive than in the Thirties «ans He says the Western nate are committed to a revolll” ary, and perhaps impossibly vio that a rising standard 0 "tl must be accompanied sf employment. t est But the institutions of a {0 countries are not desig® 0a meet the complex and in ry ing demands of the people affluence, security, statlS (¢ ease. Moreover, he says: "°. knows what changes in 19 tions or expectations W! needed to enable the to be met, or even whet f : demands can be met at 4” If you insert the word ee talism” where Sir Geoffrey “e “institutions,’ you will ” what a threat automation #4 resents to “our way of But there are people wh asf suggest a new social ari ment — socialism — 1” t automation can develop al speed for the benefit of people. ee 3 " AY Teving our OURNE INCENTIVE SYSTEM 10 May 1, 1964—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—P99”